Good Newsweek article

Irene wrote:

One thing in the article that jumped out at me that no one else has
mentioned, is the lack of good part-time daycare. That's actually
one
of the biggest things that I'd like to see - more availability of
flexible part-time daycare. Of course, there are a lot of reasons
why
it doesn't exist - day care providers have maximum numbers of kids
they
can watch, and are trying to fill up each space so they don't have to
charge a small fortune. So that if you do get part-time daycare, you
need to have a fixed schedule so some other kid can fill the other
spot. I'm not sure how to legislate around that...

I don't know if legislation is the only answer. My girlfriends and I
have been discussing the issue of PT daycare and how it is almost
impossible to find (in our large metropolitan city). What we've found
is that many daycare providers would be willing to split spots, but
don't have the capacity to match parents. We thought it would be a
great idea to set up a database in which parents could register their
geographic area (for instance by wards), daycare needs, and age of the
child ('cause the kids have to be in the same age range to share a
spot). Then they could be matched with other parents with opposite
needs to share the cost of a full-time spot.

So maybe there is a parent who'd like to work 4 days a week, but if
s/he has to pay for 5 at daycare anyway s/he can't afford it. And maybe
there is a mostly SAHP who'd love to have a day a week to do whatever
-- work, pursue a hobby, take some alone time -- who would take that
fifth day. Or two people who have the chance to work PT, 3 days one
week, 2 the next, alternating weeks. I know people in all these
scenarios.

Well anyway that's my idea for coping with PT child care. Now I just
have to implement it!

Elle
2/16/2005

Sue wrote:
I thought this one and the other links on mothering were good.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6959880/...week/?GT1=6190

--
Sue (mom to three girls)

Mothers just can't win for losing: very involved and you are smothering
and obsessed, more laissez-fair and you are putting your kids at a
disadvantage and limiting their futures. Sigh.

I find it starts at pregnancy -- there seems to be so much overreaction
and competition to get your baby off to a good start before he/she is
even born. As though whether or not you eat organically, paint your
nails or colour your hair, take a Tylenol, or sign up for half a dozen
specialty pregnancy fitness classes somehow make you a "better"
pregnant woman. Like her successor Professional Mom, Professional
Pregnant Woman seems to think there is some kind of competitive
category for gestating.

And then there is birth! Go unmedicated and there is a certain segment
of "society" i.e. other women, who label you a crazy martyr, opt for
the drugs/interventions and the other segment assumes you couldn't be
bothered doing your research. Either way women are judged selfish, just
like in the breast/bottle & WOH/SAH dichotomies. Why do we do this to
each other? Why can't we give one another the benefit of the doubt,
that we are all just doing what we think needs to be done.

Women need to look inside themselves for validation, instead of caring
about what society might think of their decisions and lifestyles. We
need to be stronger, but also kinder to one another.

Elle
2/16/2005

Darius S. Naqvi wrote:
"Melania" writes:

Yes and no. I went to the top undergraduate university in Canada,
and
on scholarship. Incidentally, the quality of education I received
there

So, which one *is* the top undergraduate university in Canada?

Well, at the time Mt. Allison - at least, based on the factors that
contribute to the Maclean's rankings: class sizes, level of
education/experience of professors, extra curricular programs,
percentage of graduates who become Rhodes Scholars and go on to various
other prestigious academic careers, the later career success of
graduates . . . and a bunch of other stuff. I found it to be an amazing
institution, which in retrospect seems almost to have been like a fairy
tale. Classes with fewer than 20 students even in first year, third
year seminars with five students in them, profs who knew you on a first
name basis and took a real interest in your work and your future . . .
the caliber of education was fantastic, the student body was reasonably
diverse, the societies and clubs were incredibly active and varied for
such a small school, great theatre, music, fine arts . . . I could go
on and on!

I forget now which school is topping the list right now, but it's not
Mt. A - maybe Acadia?

Melania
Mom to Joffre (Jan 11, 2003)
and #2 (edd May 21, 2005)

--
Darius S. Naqvi email: dsn at dsn dot incentre dot net
("From:" line email address with "nospam"
removed)

Ericka Kammerer wrote:
wrote:

"No, Sweetie, your friends are spoiled and will grow up to be
useless,
you don't want to be useless, do you?"

See, I just say, "No, hon, we can't afford that, but isn't
it nice that you got to have fun at your friend's party? And here
are some ideas for fun things we can do at your party that we can
afford--what other ideas do you have?"

I think that's an awesome way to handle it. You sound like one hell of
a good mom to me! And that's without ponies!

Amy

Denise Anderson wrote:


There's that Dad assumption again. No, Dad is unable to drive
them or
drop them off anywhere. Ever. At least for the next 5-6 years. As
is the
rest of any family support.

Sports here are not right after school, so there is no late bus or
anything
of the sort. Walking's not an option either. I do rely heavily on
my
neighbors, as we're all in the same prediciment. But I'm not
complaining
about "the pressure."

I have the same situation. We have Kinder taxi here, a private service
you can pay for to ferry your kids around town. I haven't used it, but
it's nice to know there is an option (just have to pay out the nose for
it). You might check to see if there's something similar in your neck
of the woods.

jen

Unadulterated Me wrote:
Chotii wrote:

Mmmmmyes. Now ask those people who live in those European
societies, what
percentage of their income is taken proprietarily by the government
to be
redistributed, and tell me how many Americans want to do things
that way?

In New Zealand income tax (known as PAYE..pay as you earn) is 33%
then
there is invisible GST added onto all goods and services at 12.5% so
you
don't notice it as it's incorporated into the overall cost of things,
I
think in the US you pay this separately on goods and services??

Various states have various levels of sales tax. Where I live it's 6%,
but it doesn't apply to certain things (like groceries). There's a
higher tax on gas, cigarettes, alcohol, and other things of that nature
that vary from state to state as well. A lot of people from Chicago
drive into Indiana (about 45 minutes) to stock up on cigarettes,
because Chicago has a city, a county, and a state tax on a pack of
cigarettes, while Indiana only has a state tax.

There is also additions to taxes you pay if you own businesses,

We have that here, too. Payroll taxes are a pain in the ass - that's
the bulk of what I do at work.

and also
ACC (Accident and Compensation) levies that employers must pay.

We get this in the form of workers' compensation insurance, I think,
which each company is required to carry (along with other sorts of
insurance).

I don't
think you have this in the US as you can sue for compensation, we
don't
Sue here we go through tribunals and courts and get awarded
compensation
from ACC.

People are automatically awarded a certain amount if they're injured
while at work (usually continued pay even though they can't work, plus
medical costs, plus a flat amount based on some random thing if they
lose function - I know a guy who got $800 for partial loss of use of
his index finger). People sue when they don't think it's enough. They
also sue if they fall (or something) at a place that is not their
employer - if I fell at the grocery store, and the grocery store's
liability insurance company refused to pay for my expenses (and if I
could prove that they were at fault, by storing the bananas on the
floor or something), I could take them to court to force them to help
pay my medical expenses, because it's their fault I got hurt.
Unfortunately, juries in this country tend to see "companies" as deep
pockets and most "victims" as victims, which is why you see ridiculous
awards - like $3.5 million the woman got for coffee burns at McDonald's
(this was later overturned).

But for your average Joe Blow tax is 33% of your income when you earn

over so much ($22k a year I think, under that its about 25% or
something), for that you get subsidised health care, a public health
system, fee health care for under 5's, free maternity care and post
natal care up to 6 weeks following birth, free education up to
tertiary
level (although my bank statement would debate that with gusto)and
all
your usual roads, pensions and trimmings.
You also get family support payment for working families (supplement
to
income), parental tax credits (supplement to income of working
families), paid parental leave (80% I think for 6 weeks?), and $1200
after the birth of each child.

Your population is about four million, too, which is vastly different
from our nearly 300 million (last time I checked). It becomes more
difficult to administer such services when you have so many more
people, and so much more space. What kind of military does New Zealand
have? For better or for worse, the bulk of what we pay in taxes is
going to fund various military actions, and will for the forseeable
future. We have hundreds of thousands of miles of highways. I've seen
Lord of the Rings - I didn't see a whole lot of highway (or even places
where it was possible to CGI out a highway!) in that.

We pay a lot of different taxes here. I pay property tax yearly on the
house I own, and it's pretty high because we live in a nice city with
really good schools. We pay excise tax (in the form of license plates)
on our cars. This used to be a lot higher, but my state instituted a
lottery, and used some of the proceeds to help pay it off. We pay
Federal withholding (income tax), state withholding, medicare, social
security, etc. through our paychecks, and our employers match some of
those contributions (so if you pay $10 out of your paycheck for social
security, your employer also pays $10). The level of tax you pay is
dependent upon your income. We pay sales tax on most items that we buy
(except groceries). Also, the aforementioned "sin" taxes (cigarettes,
alcohol), and gas taxes. There are certain extra taxes if you import
certain things from certain countries. In addition, the company pays
inventory tax (to the state) every spring (which means that you can get
a good deal if you buy a car, because the car dealer doesn't want to
pay inventory tax). I can't think of any others at this time, but I'm
sure there are more. I'd really like to see the US go to a flat tax,
or a national sales tax, instead of an income tax. I think it would be
a lot cheaper (and I wouldn't have to deal with it because we don't
sell anything! Ha!) but it'll never happen. That's another thread,
anyway.

If you ever have insomnia and want to bore yourself to death, you can
read our IRS's website at www.irs.gov - they're the ones who make and
enforce the rules about income taxes in this country. It's clear from
their literature that they do a lot of what they do in order to keep
themselves employed - if they write publications so no one can
understand them, that's 100 more jobs - people answering questions over
the phone, etc.

Amy



What do you pay in the US?


Andrea

Unadulterated Me wrote:
Ericka Kammerer wrote:

What if your child also would
like to do a sport or some other physical activity? Do you want
to discourage something that can help your child's health and
physical development because he or she is already playing an
instrument and has maxed out on activities?

So I take it sports and the Arts are not part of the US school
curriculum?

It depends entirely upon where you live. In some areas, budget cuts or
poor test scores have forced them to go to a more basic curriculum,
while in other areas, like where we live, our schools are still really
good. Even though we were 2.5 years away from having kids when we were
looking for a house, the quality of the schools played a huge role in
our decision. We could've found a similar house for a lot less money
in a neighboring town (separated by just a river), but the schools over
there aren't nearly as good. In the town we live in, our schools are
among the best in the state. That was really important to us, and
we're willing to pay 3 or 4 times the property tax that our friends pay
(they live in that other town, and have a much bigger lot than we have)
so that we can benefit from them.

Kids here get to do all those things in school so they all
get to experience them. Of course plenty still do seasonal sports
too,

When I was in school (in another excellent school system in the same
state, 10 years ago) P.E. was required up through grade 8 (about 14
years old) and then you had to take a certain number of semesters
(four, IIRC) during the four years of high school. I took orchestra
and choir during the school day (not at the same time, I had to choose
one or the other in order to accumulate enough credits to graduate, and
I never took a study hour which was fine with me)... but benefitted
from lessons outside of school (especially in orchestra). I took
photography in high school, as part of the electives. It was possible
to take lots of art classes, music classes, PE classes, and so on as
electives. As far as I know, all of those options (and more) are still
available. Organized sports tend to be after-school activities. They
don't have practice (typically) during the academic day.

But like I said, there are other areas where sports and arts have been
cut completely, which I find terribly sad.

Amy

Ericka Kammerer wrote:
Unadulterated Me wrote:


What do you pay in the US?

Who can tell? ;-)

No kidding!

Then there's a social security tax, which is 6.2 percent
(paid by the employee--there's another 6.2 percent paid by the
employer, though if you're self employed you have to pay both).
This tax applies on income up to (I think) $87,900.

I thought it was 6.2% if the first $7000 of income. I can't remember.
I'll have to look when I get to work tomorrow. I remember this being a
complete pain in the ass last year. Maybe it was the medicare, not the
SS, that I'm thinking of.

How much individuals
pay for health insurance varies hugely. A few employers pay the
whole premium.

Mine pays 99% - it's good to be self-employed (once you finally figure
out how to get health insurance in that situation to begin with!).

Most employers pay some portion of the premium
(anywhere from a pittance to most of it). More and more employers
aren't paying for any of it, and part time workers rarely get
health care benefits. We're fairly lucky and pay something on the
order of $145 twice a month for good family coverage.

We pay $3.34 a month to cover the two of us (but the rest of it - about
$330.00 just comes out of the other pocket). Again, we got REALLY
lucky when we found our HMO, and we get the best rate because we're
under 30 (that'll change when Peanut is born). We used to pay $500 a
month, out of pocket, for insurance that didn't cover squat, but that
company is being sued (MEGA Health and Life, stay FAR, far away...) in
a class action suit.

Amy

Circe wrote:
"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
...

Banty wrote:

In article , Chotii says...

Mmmmmyes. Now ask those people who live in those European societies,

what

percentage of their income is taken proprietarily by the government to

be

redistributed, and tell me how many Americans want to do things that

way?

::raising hand:::

I've done the math. I'll take the health benefits, too.

Oooh, ooooh, me too! I have some preferences about
exactly how they go around implementing things, as you can botch
any system, but in general I'll go for it.


I'm with you two. What say the three of us run for President in 2008 as a
triumvirate (or triumgynate, as the case may be g)?

I'd vote for you guys!!

Emily

Caledonia wrote:
wrote:

"No, Sweetie, your friends are spoiled and will grow up to be
useless,
you don't want to be useless, do you?"

The thing I've noticed is that some people with A Lot of Money are
often just people who have A Lot of Money. I'd be pretty hesitant to
put the 'spoiled' label on them, and even more so the useless one; we
live in an area where some people have A Lot of Money, and they spend
probably the same % of their income as we do on 'things,' it's just
that their disposable income is higher.

I was just kidding, of course, but as someone with A Lot of Money, I
agree. Our disposable income (especially now, still pre-kids) is just
higher than most families. Although, my husband (a self-employed
engineer) works his ass off to get it. I guess that makes me the
spoiled one. Seriously, he works 12+ hours a day, almost every day.
While it's nice that we're self-employed, and he can do some of it
from home, it's not that it was just handed to us...

Still, I hope that one of you will come to my house and shoot me if I
get anyone a pony for any occasion!! The dog is plenty big enough to
ride, anyway.

Good for you, those stupid wenches don't know how to have a
conversation, that's all. I'd be tempted to say, "Gosh, what with
Junior's pre-Ph.D. coursework, and DD's prospects for the 2012
Olympics, we simply don't have time for (sneer) neighborhood
soccer."
Let them wonder if you're serious...

I can't believe that I'm defending the competitive soccer parent, but
really, it's just a clique of like-minded folks who are doing similar
things, searching for common ground-- 'stupid wenches' sounds a
little
too inflammatory for my tastes. It's just not worth getting angry
about.

I don't think that all parents who do neighborhood soccer are stupid
wenches - on the contrary, some of the best parents I know have their
kids in soccer, and they and the kids love it. I'm saying that the
ones who give Sue crap because her family has elected NOT to do soccer
are stupid wenches. I think you'll agree that anyone who gives Sue
crap and makes her feel like an inadequate mother deserves the scorn of
all of MKP!

My point is that early success isn't a predictor for future
success.
Ask any teacher. They've seen it a hundred times. The best and
the
brightest end up moving back in with mom and dad for 10 years after
college. The kids who had to work at it a little more end up
making
$70,000 a year right out of college.

I have to interject that I've know hundreds (thousands?) of people
who
were academically talented early in life, went on to MIT/Ivy
League/Seven Sisters, and now continue to make great advancements in
the world as we know it while being personally happy and
professionally
successful. In some cases, the above even intersects with financial
success, but not always. Whatever 'the best and the brightest' means
in
this context (the top 5% of MIT undergrads? PhD candidates?) I'm
unsure.

Ok, you're right - I was totally unclear. What I meant was that the
kids for whom school comes easily, who are the valedictorian without
ever having to really put forth any effort, get used to not putting
forth effort in a lot of cases (like the two kids I talked about, and
like me, to a certain extent) and they get into college or The Real
World and they just fold when they encounter having to actually TRY for
the first time. On the other hand, the slightly less "naturally
gifted" but still bright kids who had to compete and work at it in
school are the ones who end up masters of the universe. Of course
there are people who were brilliant in school, and brilliant in
college, and who end up going on to brilliant careers, but that
relationship isn't as linear as one would think, if you look at it on
an individual basis.

So, not being able to read by age 3 or 4 isn't a predictor of future
success, because those early "gifts" wash out by the time a kid hits
high school. And our president proves that you can get to be the most
powerful man in the world without really having to read, anyway, so let
go of the stress! *ducking and running*

The thing I am aware of is that *not* getting a college degree
in the US these days often constrains one to having a job without any
guarantees and no insurance/pension/401 (k).

This is very true. I think to have any kind of comfortable life
anymore, one needs to have a college degree or be extremely, extremely
lucky. IIRC, Bill Gates doesn't have a college degree (he dropped out
of Harvard to pursue Microsoft).

So, anyway, don't let it get you down. I think strong roots are
what
enable kids to grow to be huge successes, and you get those roots
at
home, not on the soccer field.

I think it's notable that you still acknowlege the desire to have
kids
be 'huge successes' -- maybe because being a 'not so huge success'
means being locked-in at WalMart while restocking at 1:00 a.m.? (I
still can't believe I'm supporting the competitive soccer mom, but
maybe that's because I'm now feeling very, very old.)

I think hugely successful kids are healthy, relatively happy, and
living up to their objective potential. If that's working as a greeter
at WalMart for my kid, so be it. I hope they're the best frigging
greeter that WalMart has ever seen (and honestly, I hope they work at
Target, instead, because I like their corporate policies more, but
whatever...). Barring that, I hope they're the best frigging greeter
that they can be, but no, I don't think all my children have to earn
Ph.D.'s to be successful. And that's from two parents who have college
degrees, one who has a masters in rocket science of all things, and who
have always valued intelligence and education. I was a special ed
teacher, so I tend to see "ability" and "success" on a sliding scale.

Seriously, if my kid has some disability and is unable to achieve
straight A's while being the star of the basketball team and the first
chair violinist, and volunteering at the local homeless shelter on
weekends, that is so fine with me. If success, for my kid, is
maintaining good attendance and getting C's in special ed classes, and
maybe helping me load the dishwasher sometimes, good for him if he does
all of the above with a good attitude and a smile on his face. If he's
fulfilled, if he has someone to love, if he shows up and does his best
on a regular basis, that will make me proud, that will make me happy,
and that's how I define "success."

Not everyone can be "the best" at everything. Sometimes we have to
strive for "the best WE can be."

YMMV.

Amy